Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN2 37
LANGUAGE
English 37
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37
drones to a green fleet, i expect similar policies to continue for my former colleague chuck hagel to be confirmed, hopefully as early as next week. for all these reasons i have long been a supporter of renewable fuels, and i encourage the further development of an industry that is important, both to our national security as well as to our farm economy. whether we're talking food or water or energy security, let me put it this way. in the future, more crops in the field can mean fewer soldiers in the field. at the same time, as important as our defense capabilities are, we also need to rebalance for the other free d's. the u.s. today spends more on defense than on diplomacy, democracy and developments all put together. meanwhile, in the past year, china has more than doubled its investment in developing new agricultural technologies. those are the kinds of farsighted policies that are enabling china to emerge as a world power, in which we, frankly, need to get back to. as we shift our focus and our resources towards smarter, more constructive forms of international interaction, it'
are not willing to enter into an agreement for consideration of the hagel nomination. therefore, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 10. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of defense, charles timothy hagel of nebraska to be secretary of defense. the presiding officer: without objection, the motion to proceed is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president, i send a cloture motion to the desk anded ask the clerk -- and ask the clerk to report. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the rules of 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on nomination of charles timothy hagel of nebraska to be secretary of defense, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from -- the majority leader is recognized. without objection, the reading of the names is dispensed with. mr. reid: this is the first time in the history of our country that a presidential nominee
-level officers and enlisted that are so important to the leadership of our military and chuck hagel's leadership and commitment will be critical to that task. i have met with chuck hagel privately, i've asked him tough questions about iran and israel. i'm satisfied on those points that he will advise the president in according to with -- in accord with those policies but even more important i am struck by his passion, the intensity of his commitment to our men and women in uniform. his caring about them is indicated in so many ways. spontaneously and strongly in his testimony, as well as his private conversations. he will make sure that sexual assault in the military, the epidemic and scourge of rape and assault against men and women who serve and sacrifice for this country will be stopped, that there will be, in fact, zero tolerance not only in word but in deed. and his viewing, for example, of the documentary "invisible war," his understanding that this kind of misconduct is an outrage never to be even implicitly condoned and to be treated as a criminal offense, the most extreme kind of predat
voted on defense secretary nomination of chuck hagel by approving the nomination in a partyline vote. 14 democrats and 11 republicans. before the vote, senators discuss the nominee and the reason for opposing or supporting his nomination. it begins with committee chairman karl levin. >> the committee meets today to consider the nomination of former senator chuck hagel to serve as the next secretary of defense. he -- we received the nomination through which the. we held a hearing 12 days ago. senator hagel has provided the personal and financial information required by the committee. he has received letters from the director of the office of government ethics, and the acting defense department general counsel. certifying that he meets the ethics and conflict of interest standards. he has responded to our advanced policy questions and/or and the questions for the record, for these reasons i believe the time has come for the committee to act on this nomination. senator hagel has received broad support from a wide array of senior statesman in defense foreign policy organizations. at our janu
on television. today in a 58-40 cloture voted. they blocked chuck hagel being the sex -- secretary of defense. next the hour long debate on the nomination. they said they will not vote for cloture today, i think it's too bad. there's been more than enough time to read the additional speeches that have been coming in. the argument raced beyond that i know has do with the payment an equity fund that was received has been fully explained. as a highly reputable fund that senator hagel was an adviser to like many other reputable people. i think the continuation what amounts to filibuster is too bad when there's a secretary of defense who is leafing to go back to california. we need to have our new secretary of defense in place given the circumstances in this world. we have a budget crisis in this country, our scwesser is confronting us. that's sequester will have a damaging effect on the deference department, on the men and women in uniform. and on the programs, the equipment, the training that they need to be ready for any kind of contingency. so the delay in having a vote on cloture, to me is a
will resume consideration of the nomination of senator hagel to be secretary of defense. that vote will occur tomorrow morning. mr. president, in less than two hours, our country will be without a secretary of defense. at a time when we have a war going on in afghanistan, we have about 70,000 troops there, we have a nuclear weapon that was detonated in north korea a few days ago -- they're threatening, as they have publicly on other occasions, but after this bomb was put off -- set off, that they were designee it to attack us -- that they were doing it to attack us. that the situation in iran with all of their very, very militaristic statements against us. all over the world america is involved in matters dealing with our military. mr. president, i met the night before last with the man that killed osama bin laden in my office talking about his 16-year career as a seal, the places he went around the world protecting the interests of the united states. it wasn't just in afghanistan, not in pakistan, all over the world. to think that we have now in the senate a situation where we're going to wi
nothing about the personal compensation chuck hagel received in 2008, 2009 or 2010. we do not know, for example, if he receives compensation for giving paid speeches at extreme for radical groups. given the two letters he received, it is a fair inference to assume that he and those handling his nomination assembled that information, assembled his compensation, and the only reasonable inference i think is when they a symbol that there was something in there that they did not want to make public. it may be that he spoke at radical or extreme groups are anti-israel groups and accepted financial compensation. we don't know. it may be that he received extraordinary payments from defense contractors, which i would suggest as a matter of conflict of interest. this committee and the senate would be interested in. we don't know what it was because he simply said no. i will not tell you the compensatcompensat ion i personally have received. and i will point out on this question, i agree with senator harry reid. when it came to the nomination of john bold, and in a of members of this body ask
endorsed chuck hagel strongly and enthusiastically. men and women who served in both democratic and republican administrations. among them, bob gates, william cohen, madeleine albright, bill perry, thomas pickering. these are women who have -- men and women who devoted themselves to protecting the united states. they've done it with extraordinary energy and effectiveliness. in this list of our secretaries defense that will rank as the best we've ever had. they have absolute confidence that chuck hagel can and should do this job. you have in this list ambassadors who have handled the delicate, difficult issues involving international diplomacy. you have several ambassadors who have been ambassadors to the state of israel who strongly support senator hagel. all these individuals know him, they know perhaps as well if not better than many of my colleagues and myself the threats, the dangers and opportunities that face this country and they are strongly supporting chuck hagel. in fact, they have concluded, in a letter, that he is uniquely qualified to meet the challenges facing the
the qualifications of chuck hagel. i served with chuck hagel. he is a conservative republican representing the ultra liberal state of nebraska. he served with distinction in the united states senate as a senator, served on the foreign relations committee, armed services committee, intelligence committee. he's a man of quality, a man of courage. not just being able to come and give a speech here on the senate floor. during the vietnam war, he volunteered to go into combat. that's what he chose to do. because he thought it was the patriotic thing to do for his country, our country. and his family felt that way. he and his brother went togeth together. they didn't go to push pencils. they carried rifles, had strapped to their sides grenad grenades. he was wounded twice. he's an enlisted man. he didn't walk around ordering people to do things. people were ordering him around what to do. except when it came to his brother, who he saved his brother's life in combat in vietnam. and they are filibustering him. that's what they're doing. i'm going to go call chuck hagel when i finish here and say, i'm sorry,
. and that is what we will be voting on now. later on, there will be a vote on whether to confirm senator hagel. the vote now is whether to bring this debate to an end. i hope we will so we can get on to the nomination vote. i yield the floor. i think it's noon and time for a vote. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from oklahoma has 30 seconds remaining. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: let me say that we -- everything has been said, not everyone has said it. however, i would like to make sure that everyone understands that the actual statements that were made by the former senator hagel in terms of the relationship of our country with israel and iran prior to the time that he was nominated, because many of those statements were changed at that time. i encourage the no vote on cloture. the presiding officer: the time is expired. under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to br
on the other side who are supporting hagel, senator hagel for being the next secretary of defense. .. that letter of solidarity for israel. the same. the same thing as a clearing the rain and revolution guard a terrorist group. he was one of only four who did that. so i would only say, this is not a filibuster. everybody knows it's not a filibuster. i hope the media is listing that they are. this is the same thing required by the democrats and the cases john doe tim steve johnson, the case of rob portman. it is the prerogative of the senate. it's not a filibuster. they nearly won a 60-vote margin. i commented earlier that we had a republican in the white house in a majority in the senate. i was here and never objected to that. then of course you had kathleen sebelius right now, cabinet position. secretary of commerce john brace and objected to him. so the only issue here is the 60-vote margin. it's not a filibuster on the last thing i say is i will read again to their last speaker and are very good friend is the chairman of the committee when he said the other day and i wholeheart
, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of senator hagel to be secretary of defense under the previous order. further, that following the cloture vote on the hagel nomination, upon reconsideration the senate recess until 2:15 for the weekly caucus meetings. and finally, that if cloture is invoked, the time during recess, morning business and adjournment count postcloture on the hagel nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: there will be reconsideration of the cloture vote on the hagel nomination at noon tomorrow. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned. senate stands adjourned. >> johnette sandstrom waits for roll call. congress has been away for presidents' day and a sikh a sikh is the issue of sequestration. what's ahead for lawmakers on that topic? >> this has been a lot about publicity and not about legislation so far. the cuts are supposed to go into effect on march 1st and we have no progress on any negot
on senator hagel and it and is scheduled to vote this afternoon. what is the plan for his first days in office and what is your goal in terms of making him fully in charge and able to do congress after this confirmation? >> the steps post confirmation should have been to come as early as this afternoon are still to be announced. we certainly don't want to say anything in dance, but if confirmed, senator hagel has signaled a very strong commitment right away to get down to business, to get invested in the work at the pentagon and its military and civilian workers. he has been a great deal of time over several weeks getting briefed on the work i had and i think i can prematurely speak for him to some extent in saying that he is looking forward to leaving the man in a minute this department if confirmed. his goal is to look to the future and secretary panetta believes he will be outstanding. >> can he still be affect it with congress? >> absolutely. i think senator hagel is someone who has spent much of his life in the halls of the united states congress. he understands the importance o
act. also possible today, debate on the chuck hagel nomination to be defense secretary. live coverage of the senate when they return here on c-span2 and, again, that'll be at 2:15 eastern. the senate can only begin debate on the hagel nomination after it's passed out of the senate armed services committee. they are meeting this afternoon to vote on that nomination. senate democrats decided to move ahead with the vote after republicans threatened a walkout. hagel's nomination could move out of the committee on a party-line vote. democrats hold a 14-12 edge on the senate armed services panel. you can watch that vote live at 2:45 eastern on our companion network, c-span3. earlier today the senate armed services committee heard from a number of military leaders about the potential impact of budget cuts that are set to take effect in march. chief of staff of the army, general ray odierno, was among those testifying today calling the potential effects of she sequester dire. here's what he had to say. >> the fiscal outlook which the u.s. army faces in fiscal year '13 is dire, and to my knowl
second round. if they are interested, they should let us know. the meeting of our committee and the hagel nomination of the scheduled at 230 will begin at 2:45 p.m. because we have two votes at 2:15 p.m. two votes at 2:15 p.m. this afternoon. after consulting with senator inhofe, we are going to begin our meeting this afternoon at 2:45 p.m. instead of 2:30 p.m. i've asked everybody to vote early so that we can begin promptly at 2:45 p.m. this afternoon. now, i'm going to call on senator graham, then i will go to senator shaheen. senator graham? >> thank you, gentlemen, thank you for coming. thank you for having this hearing. i can't think of a better topic to be talking about. can you tell us about this is? >> senator, i have a degree in english from duke university, the answer is yes. i don't know what it's going to take. maybe it gets everyone's attention, from a navy perspective, if sequestration is implemented, will he have less naval bases? >> well, senator, that falls under the base closure realignment process. >> how many ships will they have? >> if sequestration is enacted over th
. on december of 2012, senator chuck hagel was nominee to become the secretary of defense. when he was asked about the outgoing secretary leon panetta's comments about budget sequestration that would be disastrous to national defense, the senator replied as follows. the defense department, i think in many ways, has been bloated. the defense department has gotten everything it has wanted. the last 10 years and more. we have taken priorities, dollars, programs, policies out of the state department. and another of other departments and put them in defense. the abuse and waste and fraud is astounding. .. with him or her >> or something like that. it was obvious that in some places had accumulated over the decades that is why secretary gates started the efficiency initiative that i was a part of to improve performance and requisition system. in parallel, we had absorbed for madrid $87 billion budget cut in a way wear we said we could still accomplish the mission of the nation speaking to the fact we could do what the country needed with less. but today we cannot do that strategy. so we have accom
and leadership. one, do you support or oppose chuck hagel as secretary of defense? two, with your evaluation of thomas ricks criticism of american general since world war ii except for you a general petraeus? [laughter] >> , see brilliant as his wife is. i just finished this book. it's painful to read about generous he criticized because it's correct. you see it and go i'm guilty of that. and we had shortcomings of not being strategically enough minded. you focus on your job, tactical part of the nation and not think in a big strategic problem you're trying to solve. the criticism is not hiring enough people. we don't fired generals. that may or may not be a good criticism. it's certainly worth paying attention to, but it's a useful thing to throw out there. so what was the first one? chuck hagel. if chuck hagel will take the job right now, god bless him. whoever secretary of defense, they are going to go through this constricting budget, implement things like females in combat, which i agree with, but in lamenting will be hard. something will come to head with iran in the next four years ma
-- hagel, some of the things he wants to do is to turn this back over to the military so that at least it's not embroiled in secrecy at the very beginning. we don't know anything about it. so at least it will be out many the open a bit which i think is a good thing. >> what was the level, if any, of petraeus in the writing of the book, and what is his reaction after being published? >> well, you know, i interviewed about 110 people for this book including petraeus. one thing about petraeus, he has always been very solicitous of reporters, including me, i have to admit. now, he has two motives, and everybody knows it. one is he kind of likes hanging around with reporters. but second, he sees it as what the military would call information operations or, as the french less euphemistically call it, propaganda. in other words, this is a way of getting the word out. you, and, you know, it works. the thing about petraeus i remember, i mean, i can tell you as a reporter there were four-star generals in the years before petraeus, you know, you'd go meet with them, and you'd come away thinking, god
and leadership. and the second is do you support chuck hagel as secretary of defense and what is your evaluation of the criticisms of american general since world war ii. except for you and general petraeus. [laughter] >> you know, it's painful to read about general is being criticized because a lot of it is correct. you see it, and you say, oh, that's me, i am guilty of that. we had shortcomings of not being strategically enough minded, you know, you get very focused on her job, your tactical part of the mission, not thinking of the big strategic problem that you are trying to solve. that may or may not be a good criticism, but it's certainly worth paying attention to. but it is a useful thing to throw out there. what was the first one? >> okay. >> if chuck hagel will take the job right now, god bless them. whoever will be the secretary of defense, they will go through this constricting budget, they will implement things in combat. implementing it is going to be hard. something is going to come to ahead with iran during this for years, just mathematically. it will be a very difficult for years.
with the greatest of ease. senator hagel has hearings beginning next week and he has perhaps been the most controversial. we would all be paying attention to the nominee to be the director of control and intelligence and who has himself a history of some controversy on both the left and the right. so we could just talk about what the implications of this are and i want to type with these two questions together. many of us who work in foreign policy are drawn in. in the old days, this is not as embraced as it is now. for those of us who didn't study history, a lot of us remember that all of these inconsequential and rather uninteresting country is, whether it was czechoslovakia of the time or the molly of the time, they were the precursors to larger battles that could have been dealt with had they been dealt with early. i wonder thinking through that where we see things going and underscored the throat open and see who grabs at first. >> okay. well, let's just compare senator kerry and senator hagel to senator hillary clinton and bob gates. by that standard, both of the nominees -- they are
was devoted to becoming an astronaut to the position of secretary of state. chuck hagel is a wonderful nomination. the criticism of him is silly, i believe. people are throwing that around. it is embarrassing. embarrassing to see accusations like that. if you go back to eric miller's book, he talked about the israeli lobby on many occasions. so i don't quite know what the debate is all about. i think that it will disorders go away because it doesn't make a lot of sense. the trees to care about himself, giving adultery a very bad name. but what was obama thinking. but what was obama thinking with intelligence issues that we would have to grapple with. i could not think of a better scenario than having david petraeus at the cia. that's not what he had in mind in 1947. he did not want to put in the hands of military policymakers. what the cia was created for was to challenge military intelligence. the cia has done its job correctly and that is what they have done on things such as arms control or vietnam, for that matter. what needs to be done, and let me just check the time to, we don't
will sail through the senate with the greatest of ease. senator hagel's hearings begin next week. he has been, perhaps, the most controversial. if he had not been nominated and somebody well qualified and less controversial had been put in place, someone like michele flournoy or ash carter, then, of course, we would all be paying attention to mr. brennan who is the nominee to be director of central intelligence and who has himself a history of some controversy on both the heft and the right ironically. so if we could just talk about what the implications of this are, and i'm going to try and put these two questions together, actually, and to digress and explain this question a little better, many of us who work in foreign policy studied history because that's what draws you in. and in the old days polysci and ir were fields that weren't exactly embraced as they are now, and for those of us who did study history, a hot remember that all these inconsequential and rather interesting countries whether it was the czechoslovakias or malis of the time were the precursors to larger battles that
us with a valuable prism through which senator hagel's nomination, now pending consideration by the armed services committee, should be considered. by culture, i mean that the mind-set for years that has pervaded how the department of defense buys goods and services and manage its assets and resources without regard either to affordability or what our servicemen and women actually need to defend the nation. after years of developing initiatives intended to reform how the department does business, i'm convinced that the single-most effective agent of cultural change a the department is the right leadership, leadership that recognizes that the department host of the taxpayer, a stewardship obligation to extract maximum value for every defense dollar spent and a moral responsibility to the war fighter that these dollars are being spent wisely to effectively procure desired combat capability. we need strong fiscal leadership to reject the use or lose mentality that incentivizes managers of the departments programs and activities to spend every dollar, no matter what our prioritie
your experience in research, what do you think of the reaction against chuck hagel's being secretary of defense, a man whose clearly reluctant to send soldiers into harm's way having been there himself. >> the question was about the former senator chuck hagel, a man with two purple hearts, shrapnel in his test, and all the controversy over him. without weighing in on him per se. i like the idea of people who served in uniform having a say in policy decisions in which men in uniform and women in uniform are sent into harm's way, as a general thought. i don't have a position on whether he should be secretary of defense. i do think it's interesting, and the last three or four weeks i've wished my show was up and running so we could talk about this at some length, but i think it's interesting, john kerry, chuck hagel, two men with, i think, five purple hearts between them, and both of them, although, they votedded for iraq and afghanistan, can't say they are completely doves, although, maybe john kerry didn't vote for iraq. i can't keep it straight, but in any case, what it does, and we
's senate republicans blocked the nomination of senator chuck hagel by voting to not proceed with debate on the motion on the nomination to be a ceq writes about although the culture effort was defeated, senators seem ready to advance the chuck hagel nomination when they get back from recess on february 25. republicans including john mccain, lindsey graham and lamar alexander said yesterday afternoon on the senate floor that while they would vote against cloture this week, they would be willing to allow nomination to move forward when congress returns after the recess. quote, i think it is efficient period of time to get answers to outstanding questions would be in effect, said senator mccain. both the senate and the house are not in the next week taking a break for the presidents' day recess. we will again bring live coverage of the senate's pro-forma session that will get underway at noon eastern on c-span2. as always you can see the house live right now on the companion network, c-span. army chief of staff general raymond odierno is at the brookings institution today. he will be talki
on american history tv on c-span3. >> and now former senator chuck hagel expresses his thoughts on the war in iraq and says that more should have been done leading up to the war to determine whether it was the right action to take. he also examines america's position in the world and its future from an economic and environmental perspective. this is just over an hour. >> honored to have an opportunity to be with you and in this house and your guests and those who believe in a better world and how to make a better world because as i look around this room, i see so many people who have devoted their careers and their lives to making a better world. and to all of you, thank you. we, all of us in the global community, appreciate it. and most of you are cometting to make those -- continuing to make those same kinds of contributions. nice to see you again, thank you very much, and to some of our current ambassadors who
. senator hagel. later today i'm going to be talking to john brennan. can you give a brief assessment of the two gentle and the capability and the readiness to assume the positions? >> yes, certainly. obviously that's something that the committees now have the opportunity evaluate. but in my view, both of them are outstanding individuals that have a great deal of experience and capability to be able to perform in an outstanding fashion in each of their jobs. senator hagel is someone who, you know, served in the military, worked up here on the hill. understand the issues that are involve there had. i think can be a very effective leader at the pentagon. john brennan is somebody i worked with the at the director of cia and continued to work with in this capacity. i found him to be responsible about how we can effectively conduct operations again al qaeda and against those that would attack this country. he is -- as somebody said, a straight shooter. somebody who, you know, gives you his best opinion, he doesn't play games. he is somebody who i think, you know, can honestly represent the
sequestration. secretary panetta will retire pending the confirmation of defense secretary nominee chuck hagel. [laughter] >> you are on your own, kid. >> good afternoon. as you know, this is i believe my final press conference here at the pentagon briefing room. there are moments when i thought i was part of the last act of an italian opera and i'm not sure exactly when it would end. i think that the congress will act, and that they will confirm chuck hagel this week. what i wanted to do was come down and use this opportunity to first of all thank you all, all of you that are part of the press corps here and the press in general. throughout my 50 years in public service, i have always believed, believed very deeply in the role of the press. because i believe deeply in the role of the american people in our democracy, information is a key to an informed electorate. and while we may or may not agree with every story, in the grand scheme of things, because of the work of the press, i believe the truth always comes out and in and, we cannot really serve the american people well ms we deal with th
. but sometimes i read in the newspapers that republicans are filibustering, for example senator hagel as if a majority of republicans or a majority of the senate intended to deny the nomination to senator hagel through a filibuster, when in fact what most of the republicans were saying was the nomination of the former senator has come to the floor only two days ago. we have senators who got legitimate questions about the nomination and we'd like some time to discuss it. in that case we were forced to have a vote on a motion by the majority leader to cut off debate on thursday before the recess even though the democratic leadership and the white house had been told by republican senators, enough of us, that if we voted after the recess there would be plenty of votes to make sure that the president's nominee had an up-or-down vote, as we have done throughout history in the united states senate. for whatever reason, the majority leader and the white house felt that they had to push through a vote and then went into a large complaint that republicans are filibustering the president's nomi
security strategy. let's make a choice about what we are not going to do. >> host: chuck hagel, what's your opinion? >> guest: i think he is clearly qualified and has a background in defense. i would be foolish to say that his confirmation process went well. it didn't. he is going to have to do better than that in terms of building the relationships necessary in the house and the senate. credibility matters an enormous amount. you have to have credibility with a wide variety of people with the pentagon to begin with. he is dependent on the staff to implement whatever policy he wants. he's going to need their faith and confidence in him as a leader and the policies he's implementing he will have to work to earn that in the same thing in the house in the senate. both secretary panetta and secretary gates to most recent defense secretaries had an enormous amount of credibility both in the pentagon and in the congress and in very tough times with tough decisions. that the credibility enabled them i think to be very effective. secretary hagel is going to have to achieve that he's going to have t
's nomination of chuck hagel to be defense secretary. >> off and when she said she had the podium the first lady has the posting them and she chose to use it. i think i was a quote and i think really knowing that, it was after i made the presidential radio address about this at the trip and of women and children in afghanistan by the taliban and right after that i was here visiting jenna who was in texas. we went shopping and the ladies at the cosmetic counter who worked in the cosmetic counter in the department store came up and said bank you so much for speaking for women in afghanistan. that was really the first time that i thought, they heard me. and i think i knew intellectually that the first lady had a podium but i didn't really know it until i did that. half of the cuts would come from the pentagon and the other half from non-defense discretionary programs. today representatives of the defense contractors educational institutions and other groups held a news conference to call on congress to come up with an alternative to the automatic cuts. >> welcome and good morning everyone. i am at
. when they return from their break they could begin consideration of the nomination of chuck hagel to being defense secretary of the united states. the senate armed services committee is expected to approve the nomination out of committee later today. a final vote could come as early as tomorrow. this is live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. dr. black. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal lord god, every day your hand of grace is upon us. not a moment goes by that is not touched by your providence. give our senators today tongues to speak your truth and hearts to do your will. lord, give them such a transcendent spirit that they will unleash redemptive forces to transform lives. give them also the light of truth show them where they ought to go. make them faithful stewards of their time, talents, and testimony as they seek to live for your glory. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to t
council, senator chuck hagel, president and ceo fred kemp, it's my pleasure to welcome you here this afternoon for this discussion on managing the crisis in mali. before introducing today's topic, permit me to say a word about the council's africa center for the benefit of the add yoans, those who are new to us, or those of us joining us for the first time via television or the internet. the africa center was established in september 2009 with the mission to help transform u.s. and european policy approaches to africa by emphasizing the building of strong geopolitical partnerships with african states and strengthening economic growth and prosperity on the continent. they seek to inform with policymakers and the general public of the strategic importance of africa, both globally and more american and european interests in particular. a subject, which, obviously, a commitment you share with us by joining us today which is of strategic importance. we do this through publications and a robot media presence. throughout the work to promote constructive u.s. leadership and engagement i
needs to vote on the nomination of former senator chuck hagel to be the next secretary of defense. live coverage our on companion networking c-span3. >>> having observed a steady opportunity, i can report you that the state of this old but youthful union is good. >> ones again in keeping with time on a tradition. i have come to report to you on the state of the union. i'm pleased to report that america is much improved. and there's good reason to believe that improvement will continue through the days ahead. [applause] >> my duty tonight to report on the state of the union. not the state of our government. but of our american community. and as set forth, our responsibility in the words of our founders perform a more perfect union. the state of the union is strong. >> as we gather tonight, ournati nation is in war. our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedentedac dangers. yet the state of the union has, never been stronger. >> it's because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward. of our union is strong. >> tonight president obama deliv
quick questions. thank you for your service and leadership. one, do you support or oppose chuck hagel as secretary of defense? to, what is your violation of thomas ricks criticism of american generals since world war ii except for you and general petraeus? [laughter] >> altaic the second verse. it's painful to read about generals being criticized because a lot of it's correct. you see it and say that's me, i'm guilty of that. we had shortcomings of not being strategically enough minded. you know, you get focused on your job, your tactical part of the mission and not digging the big strategic problem you're trying to solve. one is not firing enough people. we don't fire and not generals. .. you know, from the senate, his time in vietnam is useful because it gives you a context. the most important thing is if he and president obama are a good team, that is what matters. though much worry about his policy positions one way or another because he will be a policy maker. the president's policies will go but the fact that the field that they can be a good team, to me that is the important th
served as national security advisor for senior, senator chuck hagel, and as a professional staff member on the senate select committee on intelligence. during his time on the ssdi, you provided oversight of intelligence community, counterterrorism programs and led to investigations of prewar intelligence on iraq. mr. rosenbach has co-authored and edited several books on national security issues. he was a fulbright scholar. he holds a jd from georgetown, masters of public policy from the harvard kennedy school, and bachelor of arts from davidson college. please hit me a warm welcome in introducing mr. rosenbach. [applause] >> okay. good morning, y'all. it's really nice to be a. i already see some friendly faces and some faces that make me trimmer. the friendly faces are former students from the kennedy school like right there. always good. he can ge be in my site. friendly but make me trimmer are -- already smacked me and i'll to start asking questions. when you're in a job like mine, you see strikes fear and hard every day. she knows what she's talking about. that's good. this morning i
hagel to be the next defense secretary. also looking down the road, two competing bills one from the democrats, one from republicans into replacing the upcoming sequester with an alternative plan. of course, the sequestered is set to hit this coming friday. the houses also in today. houshouse members will gavel int 2 p.m. eastern for legislative business. roll call votes after 6:30 p.m. eastern. today one bill on the agenda, and that is on a bill to redesignate the research center as the neil armstrong flight research center and the western aeronautical test range at the aeronautical test range. later on this week the house is expected to consider the senate passed violence against women do. you can see the house on our companion network c-span, and the senate right here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. we are running a little bit late. good morning, everybody. we have a lot to do. we have a great speaker and the want to get to them quickly. before that, governor branstad, yo
Search Results 0 to 36 of about 37